Re: Changes to Canadian monitoring contract law

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr BAss wrote:

"Heck, we've got one of the most dishonest,
vile jerks in the trade actually sitting on the state
electrical board.  How disgusting!".

Why Mr. BAss...you're not on the state electrical board.
That would be disgusting! But since you can't get a
license in Florida, you can't get on the board.

Knock, Knock, Mr. BAss.....

Norm Mugford



"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:VnMBi.20276$vg.17341@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> True, in that specific situation you mention, such a law
>> would have prevented that consumer from being
>> defrauded. However, I think the intent of this consumer
>> protection legislation is more to even things up in the
>> market place for the consumer right across the board...
>
> Good point, Bob.  They're trying to give consumers an
> even break and that is a good thing.  It is unfortunate
> that too many alarm companies use contracts so one-
> sided and patently unfair that a law is needed to protect
> the public from alarm company abuse.
>
> Don't get me wrong on this.  I believe that many alarm
> companies are run by decent, honest people who try
> to make a living while givving their customers good
> service and proper protection.  The problem is that
> there are way too many alarm dealers who cheat their
> customers, mislead them about their contracts, offer
> insufficient protection and charge ever-increasing fees.
> Such companies are the reason we need laws like that
> in the USA, too.
>
>> It pays to remember that the vast majority of alarm
>> companies are honest and don't engage in fraudulent
>> activities such as you illustrate.
>
> I like to believe that's true, Bob.  Hopefully, the Jiminexes
> of the industry are in the minority.  One tends to become
> somewhat jaded after reading the constant stream of
> alarm company horror stories posted here.  You have
> to remember that satisfied customers rarely say anytrhing.
> Perhaps there's hope for the trade after alkl, eh?
>
>> However, even the vast majority of good companies
>> engage in needlessly signing clients into long term
>> contracts for all the equity building reasons we all
>> know and love. To suggest that this is not a fair thing
>> to do will always generate volumes of criticism as we
>> have seen in the past, and this is understandable
>> given that most companies look no further than their
>> bottom line...
>
> Well, that's the point, isn't it?  Unless alarm company
> owners see customers as *people* who need real
> *security* instead of just sources of recurring monthly
> revenue, they will keep right on trying to squeeze every
> last nickel out of them with no thought at all for the
> clients' needs.
>
> One of the reasons I respect your business model is
> that you've always promoted full protection -- physical
> and electronic.  That takes more of a comitment because
> you necessarily spend more time per job doing things
> that make the customer secure but don't necessarily
> bring in extra RMR.  One foul-mouthed lout we all know
> has often criticized you for that.  This law was made
> for people like him.
>
>> But the government appearing to step in like this is
>> simply saying to the market place that there IS a
>> legitimate place for contracts when you are paying
>> down equipment costs, but that legitimacy stops when
>> you are holding the consumer to a long term contract
>> for nothing more than specific monitoring services,
>> with a guarantee of long term revenues for you, but
>> with little or nothing of gain in it for the consumer.
>
> Let the church say, "Amen."  :^)
>
>> One of the other benefits of such legislation is that it
>> will force marginal companies to clean up their act
>> since consumers can cancel anytime they want. Plus,
>> I have no doubt it will drive prices downward quickly
>> which is not good for the industry...
>
> I'm not sure about that.  As an online marketer, I mark
> my products up significantly less than most installing
> dealers.  Doing so has brought a flood of customers my
> way, even during hard times.  I've been examining sales
> patterns over the past five years and our business has
> actually done better as the rest of the market has
> slumped.  All I can figure is that with a tighter economy
> more people are looking for ways to economize.  For a
> growing segment of the alarm market that means DIY.
> Since almost no local or national alarm dealers offer
> support to Do-It-Yourselfers, people search online.
> With such large websites as ours (92,000 pages now),
> Google, Yahoo and the rest give us good placement.
> That means increased sales.
>
> Any alarm company that is seeing enough of a drop in
> sales ought to carefully examine its pricing policy.  If
> there's room to drop a few percent and still make a
> profit, go for it.  Better to have 20% of something than
> 80% of nothing.
>
>> However, the days of ridiculous $30 plus monitoring
>> rates that don't involve equipment "write downs" will
>> rapidly disappear......
>
> True, and it's about time.
>
>> It will be interesting to see if this catches on. For all
>> I know so far, it is just talk since no one has come
>> back and said that it actually exists here in Canada
>> in any specific province.
>
> We'll have to wait and see.  I probably ought to email
> my state reps suggesting they put forth similar legislation
> here in Florida.  Lord knows the current statute isn't
> doing much to protect the public from some of these
> characters.  Heck, we've got one of the most dishonest,
> vile jerks in the trade actually sitting on the state
> electrical board.  How disgusting!
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> =============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> 941-925-8650
> 4883 Fallcrest Circle
> Sarasota · Florida · 34233
> http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> =============================>


I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html